Locurto v. United States
1:10-cv-04589
| E.D.N.Y | Apr 10, 2025Background
- Stephen LoCurto was indicted in a multi-defendant RICO conspiracy (Bonanno family) with four predicate acts attributed to him, including a 1986 murder; the indictment covered conduct before and after a 1988 RICO amendment that raised the conspiracy maximum from 20 years to life for predicates carrying life.
- Assistant U.S. Attorney Greg Andres sent a November 1, 2005 letter to defense counsel proposing plea terms (including a 20-year term for LoCurto); nine co-defendants pled and received sentences at or below the letter’s terms.
- Trial counsel Harry Batchelder enlisted Laura Oppenheim for discrete advisory work; Oppenheim advised LoCurto the 1988 amendment likely could not apply (so maximum exposure was 20 years), while Batchelder told LoCurto he risked a life sentence if convicted.
- LoCurto rejected the plea communications, proceeded to a seven-week trial, was convicted of RICO conspiracy, and sentenced to life; the Second Circuit affirmed.
- A prior magistrate and the district court found Oppenheim’s sentencing-advice objectively unreasonable (Strickland prong one) and ordered an evidentiary hearing on prejudice; after a hearing Magistrate Judge Bulsara recommended denying relief for lack of prejudice.
- The district court adopted Bulsara’s recommendation in part, rejected his COA recommendation, and denied LoCurto’s §2255 motion for lack of prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Oppenheim's deficient plea/advice caused Strickland prejudice | LoCurto would have accepted or pursued a favorable plea (e.g., 20 years) but for bad advice that the 1988 amendment couldn’t apply | Batchelder told LoCurto a life sentence was possible; LoCurto was committed to trial (acquitted in state court) and repeatedly rejected pleas | No prejudice; §2255 denied because LoCurto would not have accepted plea and was aware of life exposure |
| Status and effect of the Andres Letter as a plea offer | The written Andres Letter functioned as a concrete plea proposal that, if credited, supports prejudice showing | Government: the Letter was not a formal offer; its terms were tentative and subject to approval | Court assumed the Letter could be treated as an offer for purposes of analysis but found LoCurto still failed to prove he would have accepted it |
| Whether Oppenheim’s advice “tainted” Batchelder’s trial representation | Deficient advice by a consulting lawyer can bleed into and degrade the defense, producing prejudice | Batchelder was lead counsel, not conflicted or controlled by Oppenheim; no Second Circuit precedent recognizing taint in these facts | Rejected: no taint shown and no Second Circuit authority compelling a different result |
| Whether to grant a certificate of appealability (COA) | Magistrate recommended COA because objectively unreasonable advice is rare and debatable even without prejudice | Government opposed COA, arguing no substantial showing of prejudice or constitutional denial | COA denied: reasonable jurists would not find the lack-of-prejudice conclusion debatable |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (applying Strickland in plea-bargaining context; defendant must show plea outcome would have differed)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012) (ineffective-assistance principles apply to plea-offer communications)
- Lee v. United States, 582 U.S. 357 (2017) (prejudice inquiry requires case-by-case review of totality of evidence about what defendant would have done)
- Farhane v. United States, 121 F.4th 353 (2d Cir. 2024) (en banc) (totality-of-evidence standard for determining what defendant would have done)
- United States v. Gordon, 156 F.3d 376 (2d Cir. 1998) (prejudice may exist even absent a formal written offer when defendant lacked accurate info to decide plea strategy)
- Byrd v. Skipper, 940 F.3d 248 (6th Cir. 2019) (counsel’s failure to initiate plea negotiations can establish prejudice where defendant was misinformed and foreclosed from bargaining)
- Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009) (defining association-in-fact enterprise elements relevant to RICO conspiracy)
- United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099 (2d Cir. 1992) (earlier Second Circuit precedent on applying post‑amendment penalties to ‘straddle’ offenses)